I load up the Leonardo MADDOG Pro in FS9 at Kastrup airport EKCH. On the ground the fps was only about 15. If I open a 2D panel it drops to about 7 fps. I have used the utility to convert it to DXT1 textures which only cured long display uupdate times when looking at the side. Also I have MIPMAPPED the textures. Everything is maxed out in FS9 which I should be able to do with my system. When I tried loading the Level D 767 and PMDG 747 I got about double framerates compared to the MADDOG and no such drops in fps when opening a 2D panel.So it seems the MADDOG is very hard on framerates or is it only me seeing this abnormal low fps?My systemAMD X2 6000 3.1 GHz4 GB RAMGTS 250 1 Gb videocardWin 7 x64

I load up the Leonardo MADDOG Pro in FS9 at Kastrup airport EKCH. On the ground the fps was only about 15. If I open a 2D panel it drops to about 7 fps. I have used the utility to convert it to DXT1 textures which only cured long display uupdate times when looking at the side. Also I have MIPMAPPED the textures. Everything is maxed out in FS9 which I should be able to do with my system. When I tried loading the Level D 767 and PMDG 747 I got about double framerates compared to the MADDOG and no such drops in fps when opening a 2D panel.So it seems the MADDOG is very hard on framerates or is it only me seeing this abnormal low fps?My systemAMD X2 6000 3.1 GHz4 GB RAMGTS 250 1 Gb videocardWin 7 x64

If you have the sliders in their menu performance screen all the way to the max(right) good luck. the panels will be great but you better have a very high end system to handle the framerate kill.Carl Perry 7+ year sim pilot

If you have the sliders in their menu performance screen all the way to the max(right) good luck. the panels will be great but you better have a very high end system to handle the framerate kill.Carl Perry 7+ year sim pilot

Yes I had those sliders maxed out but this is FS9 we are talking about not FSX so I think it should be possible. Also the panels look great in PMDG 747-400 and LD 767 so why not also in the maddog?

Yes I had those sliders maxed out but this is FS9 we are talking about not FSX so I think it should be possible. Also the panels look great in PMDG 747-400 and LD 767 so why not also in the maddog?

You'll not get good FR w/ maddog gauge config sliders all to the right (max quality for all gauges). Even on my rig I have to back off on some.

Just checked my setup of the LH MD.Full sliders to the right @ FSDT's Las Vegas with Active Sky Evolution and REX clouds. Average around 30-32With the below settings and really no difference in Flight Deck quality 35-37.My frames are locked at 59 and No Traffic.Specs:Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 Dual Core Processor 3.33GHZ Wolfdale 1333FSB 2GB OCZ PC2-9200 1150MHz Reaper Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz BFG GeForce 8800 GT OCX 512MB PCI-EWestern Digital 750GB SATA II 32MB Soundblaster X-Fi Elite Pro20 inch Ultrasharp

You'll not get good FR w/ maddog gauge config sliders all to the right (max quality for all gauges). Even on my rig I have to back off on some.

What? You can't throw anything at FS9 with overclocked i7? It seems FS (both 9 and X) can bog down any system during some situations. Well I lowered those settings one notch and fps at least got up in the 20ies at ground at EKCH. I still don't know about stuttering later in the flight (more important than raw fps)

What? You can't throw anything at FS9 with overclocked i7? It seems FS (both 9 and X) can bog down any system during some situations. Well I lowered those settings one notch and fps at least got up in the 20ies at ground at EKCH. I still don't know about stuttering later in the flight (more important than raw fps)

Yup, its true. There are certain things that are hardware limitations, then there are software limitations along with coding problems/outdated code. Nothing you can do about it.

Geddy,I was just curious if you use no traffic just for this test that you performed, or do you always go with no traffic?

Geddy,I was just curious if you use no traffic just for this test that you performed, or do you always go with no traffic?

No, I fly 100% online VATSIM, so the only AI (WOAI) I experience are at busy airports. But have many times taken my SAS MD in Kastrup during their Copenhagen flyin with no stuttering or troubles at all.And there can be anywhere from 20-40 aircraft on the ground at once.

Just to add my 2c, there's nothing really wrong with the default gauge quality settings, they are more than enough and on par with other payware aircraft. I don't know what it is about the LH MD, but it's true - gauge settings all the way to the right bring most (all?) systems to their knees. I can't run them that high either (frames drop to low single digits). I haven't observed any remarkable increase in their quality to justify such a sacrifice though. I do get the occasional stutters, but nothing that would impede my ability to fly the plane.

Yes, I know this an old-ish thread but for anyone else looking for posts about FS9 framerates, thought I'd add my 2 cents worth.I've just started to look at the Maddog 2010 Pro, and must concur, it can bring FS9 FPS down pretty low.At the highest settings, most of the gauges use high levels of AA and where appropriate, refresh rates of around 18 fps - which for a gauge is not bad in the VC ! But, it does look very nice indeed !So, yes, you will need to pull back the sliders and get a better system.In fact this goes for all FS9 users today, using older hardware. Many of the newer sceneries such as the Aerosoft airports, REX v2 etc., when combined with the old stalwarts such as Ultimate Terrain (esp. at high settings), will cause you problems.Add in third party apps such as Active Sky and Radar contact, and you cannot expect FS9 to perform miracles. Yes, it looks 10x better than it did 7 years ago, but not on a Pentium 4 or dodgy old Core 2 Duo running at 2.4 GHz with 2GB of 667 RAM. Not gonna happen ! Don't forget, FS9 only uses ONE CPU core - so the benefit of an i5 or i7 system, is somewhat reduced. Clock for Clock, an i7 is only around 20% faster than a good Core 2 - such as the 7 or 8 series Wolfdales. So, if you clock a Wolfie to 4.0 GHz, you're only around 15-20% slower than an i7 at 3.6GHz. Clock it to 4.5GHz - which some do - and it's around the same. It 'aint rocket science: do the math.But, I'm surprised that our user above with the Wolfdale Dual Core (the E8400 or8600 above ?) gets away with a 32bit O/S and 2GB (max) of addressable memory. I'm getting constant OMEs with the Super80 from Coolsky - hence the reason I've tried out the Leonardo version. You really need at least 4GB on a 64bit O/S to get the most out of FS9 today.With my Super80 from Coolsky, I'm getting around 900MB of memory useage just sat in a complex airport with modest traffic and weather. By the time you fly for 2 hours and come into land at another complex airport, it quickly tips the scales at 1.2GB - then Bam !!! OME !Simply, with 2GB of RAM available to the system, including your GPU RAM, you only have aorund 1GB available to the sim. This is easily reached with todays modern FS9 scenery, utilities and complex aircraft.I find that the Leonardo gives me poorer FPS, but better memory useage - just !Still, I'm upgrading to a 64bit and 4GB of RAM, ASAP !!!I can fly anything at 30 fps in most situations with a 3.2GHz Core 2, but OMEs are very prevalent. RAM is the key to smooth FS9 flight with recent scenery addons.A minimum of a Core 2 Duo at 3Ghz, 4GB 800 MHz RAM, on a 64-bit system, with at least an 8800GT or GTS 250 (9800GTX) for resolutions up to 1920x1080, is all you need for good performance - as well as a decent defragmented HDD of course !To be honest, it is not worth any more expenditure if you're happy with just flying in FS2004. Of course that system would allow you to fly VFR low'n slow in FSX too... !I think that performance in FSX today, even with the best PC money can buy, is still lousy. And, it certainly 'aint worth shelling out the best part of a grand to do it either. Nah, I'll wait for the i9-series. Maybe 2 more iterations may give us the hardware nencessary to fly FSX how it was intended.

What you have said is true, and that is why the very good majority of fs9ers go the 4gb switch route. I used to get OOM's constantly when I was flying long hauls with the 747 into Cloud9's KLAX. Now that I did the switch, I can do the long haul, land, sit on the ground for 45 minutes, and do another long haul...all without any errors whatsoever.

Yes, ther eis the 3GB/Switch if you have a 32 bit O/S and 4GB of physical RAM... but I have found that it can cause problems on XP.If you are lucky and it's stable on your system, then that will save you the hastle of installing a 64 bit O/S and reinstalling !If not, you have to go the whole hog and install Win 7.In fact I may try the 3GB switch on my new XP SP3 install and keep my fingers crossed. It will give me another 1 GB for the sim... would make a lot of difference. It would mean my OME would not kick in until around 1.8 GB.

the very good majority of fs9ers go the 4gb switch route

Not being a computer professional I want to make sure: what is the 4GB switch compared to the 3GB switch (which I applied myself)?

I may try the 3GB switch on my new XP SP3 install and keep my fingers crossed

I've never had any problems since I applied the 3GB switch on my XP (both SP2 and SP3 now).I also didn't experience one OOM ever after, which is what the sweet switch is about. :(

Don't forget, FS9 only uses ONE CPU core - so the benefit of an i5 or i7 system, is somewhat reduced. Clock for Clock, an i7 is only around 20% faster than a good Core 2 - such as the 7 or 8 series Wolfdales. So, if you clock a Wolfie to 4.0 GHz, you're only around 15-20% slower than an i7 at 3.6GHz. Clock it to 4.5GHz - which some do - and it's around the same. It 'aint rocket science: do the math.

Interesting comparison, Gabe. Does it apply both to WinXP and Win7? Did anyone try to test fs9 on WinXP and Win7 on the same hardware? Is there a FPS toll in FS9 for upgrading from WinXP to Win7? Thanks,Dirk.